Test XI for The Last Quarter Century

[Burgey]

I remember there being an occasion or 2 where the ball actually went way over the fence, but was still called as only a 4 because it hit a sightscreen or advertising board or something?

May need clarification as I was very young at the time but I remember people going on about how stupid it was.

Yeah, back when sightscreens were on the ground like they used to be at the MCG when Steve Waugh took that crazy catch off Harper and ran behind it, you could bomb a straight drive and hit the top of the sight screen and it would be four, not six. Was the same rule with sightscreens which were perched on top of the boundary fence, and with the ball hitting the fence itself.

 

[Starfighter]

Is it? I have been watching cricket since the 90s and I don't remember this rule or any catch being taken trodding on the rope/fence. Always thought it was a boundary when the ball touches the rope/ad board.

I actually can't recall any instance of someone taking a possible catch at the rope, but I have seen multiple instances of boundaries saved with the fielder's legs against the fence. The point is the ball actually had to touch the fence itself to be four. The fielder touching the ball and fence at the same time did not somehow connect the ball to the boundary. With a fielder touching the rope they'll often push it out of the way and be grounded beyond where the rope once was, but just brushing it may have been fine. Probably the the main reason you don't recall it was they didn't have pernickety replays over that sort of thing, and sliding was less common.

Also the sight screen used to be on the field of play, and balls hitting it on the full only got four. This catch, as Burgey mentioned could never have happened under the modern rules.

I just checked the 1980 laws. You weren't allowed to touch a boundary line, but you were allowed to touch a fence or board. I'm guessing they might consider the rope a line, but I've seen replays from English domestic limited overs matches in the nineties where a ball hitting the rope on the ball only got four, which would seem to mean treating it like a board rather than a line. In any case replays over that sort of thing were a lot rarer if they happened at all, so it was left to the umpire's discretion, a lot of grounds didn't have ropes and a lot that did often only had them a yard inside the fence, not five or six like is common these days. It's definitely a lot more important these days.

 

[trundler]

Yeah I've seen fielders lean over the fence to help take a catch. I can recall an instance of Pollard hititng flick on the leg side and the ball instead took the top edge and flew off to the offside in front of square. A bizarre incident but it's really ridiculous how that can even happen. IMO, cricket would be better with all these modern 360 shots AND longer boundaries + neutral fielding regulations. There's really nothing enjoyable in watching a Gayle or Russell bat when it's all just mindless power and slogging.

 

[cnerd123]

Well the MCC already has a law on bat sizes - so basically this is about as big as they're allowed to get. They'll get better designed and denser and more optimal, sure, but now there is some sort of curb on it.

It's changing cricket but bowlers will find a way to bounce back. For instance - all those edges that used to die on their way to slips, or mishits that never carried to the deep - these now become wicket taking opportunities.

You can also play on a batsman's ego more, since they're are more willing to just swing and hope to connect to get six.

And we're already seeing a deterioration in modern batsmen's techniques when it comes to playing the moving ball, and a mentality than makes simply batting for time a harder thing to accomplish.

I think eventually we'll come to accept a certain level of run scoring as the new norm. The important thing is that this stabilizes for a while - the rate at which run scoring as changed in the last 2-3 decades has been a bit extreme.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Well the MCC already has a law on bat sizes - so basically this is about as big as they're allowed to get. They'll get better designed and denser and more optimal, sure, but now there is some sort of curb on it.

It's changing cricket but bowlers will find a way to bounce back. For instance - all those edges that used to die on their way to slips, or mishits that never carried to the deep - these now become wicket taking opportunities.

You can also play on a batsman's ego more, since they're are more willing to just swing and hope to connect to get six.

And we're already seeing a deterioration in modern batsmen's techniques when it comes to playing the moving ball, and a mentality than makes simply batting for time a harder thing to accomplish.

I think eventually we'll come to accept a certain level of run scoring as the new norm. The important thing is that this stabilizes for a while - the rate at which run scoring as changed in the last 2-3 decades has been a bit extreme.

Agreed

Records | One-Day Internationals | Bowling records | Best career bowling average | ESPNcricinfo

In a list of 50 best bowling averages (min 1000 balls) of all time for ODI,

18 players have played between 2015 and 2018. (I am short sighted if exact number wrong)

So bowling averages overall are not being hurt. E/R are.

 

[trundler]

Well the MCC already has a law on bat sizes - so basically this is about as big as they're allowed to get. They'll get better designed and denser and more optimal, sure, but now there is some sort of curb on it.

It's changing cricket but bowlers will find a way to bounce back. For instance - all those edges that used to die on their way to slips, or mishits that never carried to the deep - these now become wicket taking opportunities.

You can also play on a batsman's ego more, since they're are more willing to just swing and hope to connect to get six.

And we're already seeing a deterioration in modern batsmen's techniques when it comes to playing the moving ball, and a mentality than makes simply batting for time a harder thing to accomplish.

I think eventually we'll come to accept a certain level of run scoring as the new norm. The important thing is that this stabilizes for a while - the rate at which run scoring as changed in the last 2-3 decades has been a bit extreme.

The early 1990s go-slow and preserve your wicket to get to 200-4 at the end of your 50 overs was a bit bland and unexciting but tbh, 350 every game isn't much better. Along with the technique is the fact that it's changing the mindset and at the risk of sounding like I'm 80 I'll say the quality of test batsmen is getting worse. It's not just the bats and the fielding restrictions, there's the fact that pitches are dead and flatter than ever. Look at what they did to Perth! More greentops and reverse swing might somewhat neutralise all the mindless slogging. Maybe bring the 1 ball rule or a ball that swings (the Duke or whatever, don't know the specifics). Still, as it is things have disproportionately benefited batsmen and once any batsman crosses like 30 there's a chance they're getting a ton.

 

[trundler]

Agreed

Records | One-Day Internationals | Bowling records | Best career bowling average | ESPNcricinfo

In a list of best bowling averages (min 1000 balls) of all time for ODI,

16 players have played between 2015 and 2018.

So bowling averages overall are not being hurt. E/R are. Bowler S/R are increasing.

Well, most at the top are players with short careers and Rashid who has only played against associates. Makes Garner even more impressive. Starc has unbelievably good numbers tho

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Well, most at the top are players with short careers and Rashid who has only played against associates. Makes Garner even more impressive. Starc has unbelievably good numbers tho

Look at the 18 again, Boult, Henry, Tahir, Ajmal, Bumrah, Philander, Mishra, Musatfizur, Mendis, Hazlewood, Hasan Ali.

Khan has played more than associates. Take a gander at his profile.

 

[Starfighter]

Agreed

Records | One-Day Internationals | Bowling records | Best career bowling average | ESPNcricinfo

In a list of 50 best bowling averages (min 1000 balls) of all time for ODI,

18 players have played between 2015 and 2018. (I am short sighted if exact number wrong)

So bowling averages overall are not being hurt. E/R are.

FYI aggregate bowling averages:

70's: 27.1
80's: 31
90's: 32.5
00's: 32.39 (surprisingly)
10's: 32.98

Not a big difference, but things have gotten worse, and the average score has increased dramatically (first innings only):

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah definitely looks as though it actually has affected averages, at least at just a cursory glance/

Of the recent players, how many of those averages are significant? That aren't minnows or have played 20-25 games or less?

Starc is there, maybe Hasan Ali in 30 games (played a lot against the weaker sides though). Bumrah ~22 too is a recent player. Not much else really.

But that's hardly unexpected, with scores getting higher of course bowlers averages (and/or Rpo) are going to increase

 

[cnerd123]

The early 1990s go-slow and preserve your wicket to get to 200-4 at the end of your 50 overs was a bit bland and unexciting but tbh, 350 every game isn't much better. Along with the technique is the fact that it's changing the mindset and at the risk of sounding like I'm 80 I'll say the quality of test batsmen is getting worse. It's not just the bats and the fielding restrictions, there's the fact that pitches are dead and flatter than ever. Look at what they did to Perth! More greentops and reverse swing might somewhat neutralise all the mindless slogging. Maybe bring the 1 ball rule or a ball that swings (the Duke or whatever, don't know the specifics). Still, as it is things have disproportionately benefited batsmen and once any batsman crosses like 30 there's a chance they're getting a ton.

I think ODIs are just formulaic by nature. The problem doesn't lie in the formats, or rules, or bats or whatever - it's just what happens when you have an extremely professionalized sport with lots of money at stake. No one is going to be creative at the risk of losing. Everyone is just going to stick to the script so they don't get lambasted when they try a new approach and lose.

I honestly find ODIs to be exciting based on how closely fought the game is, independent of the runs being scored. The difference between 200 vs 200 and 350 vs 350 is simply that the bar has been shifted on what an 'acceptable' outcome is off one delivery. A single in the 350 vs 350 is as good as a dot ball in 200 vs 200. I just adjust my expectations accordingly and still enjoy the game.

The issue I used to have is that the bar for 'good' bowling has gotten so high - for a bowler to dominate a batting lineup, they can't just be a talented guy who bowls in good areas. Now you have to be a freak. Freakish pace, weird action, freakish amounts of spin. Something like that. And that's just so hard to find. Meanwhile the bar for a 'good' batsman has gotten lower, to the point we aren't really impressed by someone smashing a matchwinning 100 off 70 balls anymore. We're only impressed by consistency over the course of a series, season, year, or by showing up in a pressure scenario.

But I don't have that issue anymore - it seems that bowlers are learning how to be clever. Before if you got a wicket by someone slogging you to the deep, you kinda feel cheap. You didn't beat the batsman, didn't bowl a ball too good for him, you just got smacked and happen to have a fielder underneath it. Got lucky. But modern bowlers don't think that way anymore. They celebrate those wickets like their own. They have elaborate plans, tricks, subtle variations - they want batsmen to hit them to the fielder in the deep. Bats have gotten better, but so have fielders, and boundary catching today is at a whole new level. Bowlers are taking advantage of this.

So I think we just need to adjust our expectation of what good bowling is. A curving outswinger taking off a batsman's off stump is ***y as hell, but in today's cricket that is on par to a off cutter that gets mistimed to deep midwicket in terms of 'good' bowling. I think we're going to see a lot of inncouous looking spinners and seamers start to dominate in the years to come, and they'll rarely take aesthetically appealing wickets, and there will be a learning curve to start to appreciate these guys for the skill they really have, that isn't as obvious to the naked eye.

 

[Bolo]

Batting averages aren't really up. ODI cricket only got going in the 90s, and has been constant since. Runs per game are- higher strike rates. A higher percentage of wickets are going down per game.

Theoretically, this is a good thing. More runs plus more wickets means more action.

I feel like we adjust to the runs pretty quickly. 250 used to be exciting to watch, now it's 300 or 350 or whatever. Effortless runs are not as exciting as well. A David Warner push block for 4 is not the same as watching a bat get rewarded for a proper shot. Not to mention the miss hits.

I will never adjust to the wickets falling. A wicket is always exciting unless it's T20, where it doesn't change the game.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Batting averages aren't really up. ODI cricket only got going in the 90s, and has been constant since. Runs per game are- higher strike rates. A higher percentage of wickets are going down per game.

Theoretically, this is a good thing. More runs plus more wickets means more action.

I feel like we adjust to the runs pretty quickly. 250 used to be exciting to watch, now it's 300 or 350 or whatever. Effortless runs are not as exciting as well. A David Warner push block for 4 is not the same as watching a bat get rewarded for a proper shot. Not to mention the miss hits.

I will never adjust to the wickets falling. A wicket is always exciting unless it's T20, where it doesn't change the game.

Yeah I was thinking this as well. Even if averages haven't gone up much since 2000s it's probably because we're getting more 330/8 and less 250/5

 

[Mr Miyagi]

FYI aggregate bowling averages:

70's: 27.1
80's: 31
90's: 32.5
00's: 32.39 (surprisingly)
10's: 32.98

Not a big difference, but things have gotten worse,[/IMG]

32.5 to 32.98 - 1,4% worse? 1.4% over 28 years? That's pretty insignficant to me. I further bet run outs have increased dramatically since the third umpire was brought in during the 1990's too.

 

[cnerd123]

Honestly, the value for a shot that every batsman gets now has made the game a lot better in my view - because now you cannot afford to stray away from your line and length at all in the highest levels.

Your fields have to be set precisely, and the second you bowl a ball in the wrong area, it takes the merest of pushes to send it to the fence.

Old school ODI cricket had a lot of cases where fielding sides got a bit lax with how they set their field and where they bowl, because any gaps or mistakes were not as ruthlessly punished. Limited overs cricket today is at a whole new level. It's really quite excellent to watch if you keep that in mind - TV coverage doesn't do a good job of demonstrating that dynamic tho.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Batting averages aren't really up. ODI cricket only got going in the 90s, and has been constant since. Runs per game are- higher strike rates. A higher percentage of wickets are going down per game.

Theoretically, this is a good thing. More runs plus more wickets means more action.

I feel like we adjust to the runs pretty quickly. 250 used to be exciting to watch, now it's 300 or 350 or whatever. Effortless runs are not as exciting as well. A David Warner push block for 4 is not the same as watching a bat get rewarded for a proper shot. Not to mention the miss hits.

I will never adjust to the wickets falling. A wicket is always exciting unless it's T20, where it doesn't change the game.

I am so not sure on this. I wouldn't be at all surprised if batting averages are increasing, while bowling averages stay the same and E/R gets worse, which means SR of batsmen is increasing.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/royal-london-one-day-cup-2014/content/records/282911.html

Half the top career average batsmen played THIS YEAR already. Half.

 

[trundler]

I think ODIs are just formulaic by nature. The problem doesn't lie in the formats, or rules, or bats or whatever - it's just what happens when you have an extremely professionalized sport with lots of money at stake. No one is going to be creative at the risk of losing. Everyone is just going to stick to the script so they don't get lambasted when they try a new approach and lose.

I honestly find ODIs to be exciting based on how closely fought the game is, independent of the runs being scored. The difference between 200 vs 200 and 350 vs 350 is simply that the bar has been shifted on what an 'acceptable' outcome is off one delivery. A single in the 350 vs 350 is as good as a dot ball in 200 vs 200. I just adjust my expectations accordingly and still enjoy the game.

The issue I used to have is that the bar for 'good' bowling has gotten so high - for a bowler to dominate a batting lineup, they can't just be a talented guy who bowls in good areas. Now you have to be a freak. Freakish pace, weird action, freakish amounts of spin. Something like that. And that's just so hard to find. Meanwhile the bar for a 'good' batsman has gotten lower, to the point we aren't really impressed by someone smashing a matchwinning 100 off 70 balls anymore. We're only impressed by consistency over the course of a series, season, year, or by showing up in a pressure scenario.

But I don't have that issue anymore - it seems that bowlers are learning how to be clever. Before if you got a wicket by someone slogging you to the deep, you kinda feel cheap. You didn't beat the batsman, didn't bowl a ball too good for him, you just got smacked and happen to have a fielder underneath it. Got lucky. But modern bowlers don't think that way anymore. They celebrate those wickets like their own. They have elaborate plans, tricks, subtle variations - they want batsmen to hit them to the fielder in the deep. Bats have gotten better, but so have fielders, and boundary catching today is at a whole new level. Bowlers are taking advantage of this.

So I think we just need to adjust our expectation of what good bowling is. A curving outswinger taking off a batsman's off stump is ***y as hell, but in today's cricket that is on par to a off cutter that gets mistimed to deep midwicket in terms of 'good' bowling. I think we're going to see a lot of inncouous looking spinners and seamers start to dominate in the years to come, and they'll rarely take aesthetically appealing wickets, and there will be a learning curve to start to appreciate these guys for the skill they really have, that isn't as obvious to the naked eye.

That's pretty well-thought out and interesting. Kudos, ***** but I'm just going to stomp my feet and say I JUST DON'T LIKE IT IT'S NOT ***Y!
The game's always changing. It's not just ODIs. There have been over 200 first class 300s since WG's 300 all the way back in the 19th century, The first 100 took a 100 or so years and the next 100 only 40 years. Or maybe it was 1000 but you get the gist.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't really like slog-outs though, where it just becomes a matter of how can hit the most 4s and 6s in your overs and the value of bowling is basically limited to getting in a few good slower balls when you can.

Most recent example of this was the latest game Aus v NZ at Eden Park (I know it was a T20 but same principle), NZ made a huge score and then it was chased down as if it was nothing because it was just a slog-athon. Being Eden Park of course exacerbated it but it's nice for the bowlers to serve important roles as well. When you beat the batsman and the result is a top edge over the keeper for 6, or mis-timed slog that still goes for 6 despite completely deceiving the batsman, it's just not cool.

Variety is key

 

[Starfighter]

Honestly, the value for a shot that every batsman gets now has made the game a lot better in my view - because now you cannot afford to stray away from your line and length at all in the highest levels.

I disagree. Batsmen get too much value for their shots now. You don't have to centre it at all and don't have to put in anywhere maximum effort to get six. Meanwhile what would otherwise be bad balls are often as or more valuable than good balls from a bowling perspective. That soul-sucking short of a length bowling is a hideous blight.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I am so not sure on this. I wouldn't be at all surprised if batting averages are increasing, while bowling averages stay the same and E/R gets worse, which means SR of batsmen is increasing.

I don't think that's mathematically possible, unless you think there has been a significant reduction in the number of run outs.